The aftershocks from the 2006 edition of the oldline Protestant sex wars continue to rattle around through the infrastructures of churches at the local, national and global levels.
As I stressed the other day, both the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and The Episcopal Church — a name that leaves it one step away from declaring itself a global body — are now essentially in the same position, a neverland called “local option.” Neither has formally abandoned 2000 years of Christian tradition on sex and marriage, but both have voted to allow regional bodies to do so without punishment. The Episcopal Church also quietly declined to formally support gay marriage, but openly proclaimed that it was opposed to all efforts to oppose gay marriage. It’s called via media.
Over at The New York Times, veteran religion scribe Laurie Goodstein produced a news feature that tried to sum up this purgatory state, this land between a clear victory for either the left or the right. Here’s the statement of her thesis:
For the Episcopal Church U.S.A. and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as with other mainline Protestant churches, the summertime convention season has become a painful ritual. In each church, the conservatives and the liberals are bound together like brawling conjoined twins.
The liberals dominate the power centers of the denominations — the national offices and the legislative arms. The conservatives have threatened to walk away, but most have not because they say the church is rightfully, theologically, theirs. …
Members of both churches had looked to this year’s conventions to clarify their positions on ordaining gay clergy members and blessing same-sex couples. But instead, each convention produced the kind of parliamentary doublespeak that some Episcopalians call “Anglican fudge …”
That is part of the story, but I believe she missed — probably due to lack of space — several key elements.
The conservatives do have theology on their side, but it is the theology of the past, the actual teachings of the Protestant Reformers and, on moral theology, the ancient churches of East and West. But part of their problem is that they do not have the theology of the present on their side, in large part because almost all of their denominational seminaries have for decades been solidly modernist and now postmodernist. Thus, year after year, the conservatives are losing control of the theology of the future in these national churches that are committed to evolving — or reforming — their way into a future based on majority or super-majority rule.
The establishment leaders in these oldline churches also have money on their side — sort of. They legally control the structures that affect property and pensions, although conservative congregations have won a few battles against progressive regional executives and-or bishops. These are expensive battles for people on both sides, but, in the Anglican wars, many of the bishops in old, historic cathedrals have endowment funds to tap.
In other words, they control the money of the past and will use it to defend the theology of the future.
However, the conservatives have the growing congregations — locally and globally — and, thus, tend to have healthy budgets in the here and now. Many of them are outgrowing their sanctuaries or have just built giant new facilities that their local bishops or presbyteries literally cannot afford to operate if the people in the pews (and their checkbooks) walk away.
In other words, the conservatives control — in many key zip codes — the money of the present and will use it to defend the theology of the past.
How will this play out at the local level? One of the biggest religion stories in America today is unfolding down in the Dallas area, although you would not know that by looking at the online front page of The Dallas Morning News.
It seems that the flock many hail as the single largest Episcopal congregation in the United States — when it comes to live people sitting in real pews — has decided that enough is enough and is leaving The Episcopal Church. Click here to read the story by religion reporter Jeffrey Weiss and click here to read blog commentary by Rod “Crunchy Con” Dreher of the newspaper’s editorial-page staff.
As Weiss notes, the key to this story is that this massive congregation has the support of the local Episcopal bishop. They like him and he likes them. Still, the congregation has decided to leave the American church in order to show its loyalty to the larger global Anglican Communion, which, especially in the Third World, remains quite traditional in terms of doctrine and practice.
Weiss notes:
What happens next is not clear. Under the rules of the Episcopal Church, parish property does not belong to the congregation but to the diocese, which is supposed to act in accord with the national denomination’s rules. So in theory, according to some church law experts, the Dallas bishop could demand that Christ Church’s congregation no longer meet in the church campus, on Legacy Drive.
But Christ Church has the support of Dallas Bishop James Stanton, who opposed the 2003 vote that confirmed Bishop Robinson. Christ Church says it still regards the Dallas bishop as its “apostolic leader.” And Bishop Stanton said Monday that he intends to allow the congregation to continue to use the campus. “They bought it. They paid for it,” Bishop Stanton said.
National church leaders could not be reached for comment.
What this story does not dig into, yet, is the financial side of this local crisis. What is Christ Church’s building (pictured) worth? How much money has this megachurch, by Anglican standards, been paying into the diocesan budget? Can the national church afford to lose more pledges from major parishes and dioceses?
Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for a word from Canterbury. Will Archbishop Rowan Williams remain loyal (his views on moral theology are progressive) to the endowments of the past (to his theological class, so to speak) or to the churches that are experiencing growth in the present and are striving to protect their futures?
At some point, the Third World will not settle for fudge. However, what about Queen Elizabeth II?
UPDATE: Well not, it seems that even as I typed those words the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement on these issues was coming out and starting to draw attention in London, if not on this side of the pond. It appears that he will attempt a kind of “local option,” but with two different levels of ecclesiastical and doctrinal ties that bind.
Are we talking Communion vs. communion, with The Episcopal Church being the small “c” in the eyes of the majority of the world’s Anglicans? Click here to go to the Ruth Gledhill report in The Times and here for her blog, with many other key links. The headline is going to spoil a lot of lunches today in blue Episcopal zip codes: “Worldwide Anglican church to split over gay bishop.” Here are the crunch paragraphs:
… Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, “constituent” membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to “associate” membership.
All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a “covenant” which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree. But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.
In this relationship, The Episcopal Church and those who support it would have a status not unlike members of Methodist bodies, who have some historic ties to Anglicanism, but are not part of the formal structures of the global Anglican Communion.
That said, everything I wrote here still stands when it comes to money issues and legal issues. Can the Anglican Communion pay its bills without the big bucks it gets from American endowment funds? Remember that old saying: The Africans pray, the Americans pay and the British get to write the resolutions.
 | Posted at 10:56 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (23) |
June 27, 2006, at 12:28 pm
There is one problem with Anglican fudge —or mainstream Protestant “stew”—and that is where does that leave the role of the Holy Spirit as the inspiring and guiding Spirit in those churches both doctrinally and morally??? Isn’t to have extremely divergent- even blatantly opposite- views officially condoned, allowed, or even promoted in the same ecclesial body to teach as doctrine that the Holy Spirit speaks with forked tongue????
June 27, 2006, at 12:35 pm
Yeah! What about the Queen? Its hard to Imagine Henry VIII being so hands of and silent regarding church matters. Someone needs to rouse her Britanic Majesty.
June 27, 2006, at 12:45 pm
The money is the the test for the Anglican community. Can Akinola and the Anglicans survive on money from a few, conservative Anglican churches in the U.S.
For every Dallas, there is a Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago (and Toronto and Aukland and Sydney) that won’t be interested in funding for schismic follies and may be prepared to say, “Fine. Hand over the keys to your building and start asking for Akinola to pay the light bill while you meet in the high school gym or a local movie theatre.”
June 27, 2006, at 1:32 pm
Revolutionary War Among the Anglicans
pEngland has spoken and it appears the U.S. may need to have a Declaration of Independence from colonial rule. Or so goes the narrative by Father Jake given the news from Canterbury. Dr. Williams will not make the decision. The
June 27, 2006, at 1:42 pm
Michael might want to do a little more research about Anglicanism in Sydney.
June 27, 2006, at 2:20 pm
MICHAEL:
A few questions:
* Legally, is The Episcopal Church defined as the US body that is in Communion with Canterbury? Courts don’t like doctrinal disputes, but what if TEC is no longer in Communion with Canterbury?
* If 10 percent splits from 90 percent, did the 90 percent cause the schism? It seems that Canterbury has had to do the GLOBAL math.
* You are totally right about the money. However, as my post noted, many of the conservative US churches already have outgrown their buildings and need to move. Some now are in buildings that their dioceses cannot afford to operate — all but empty.
Yes, the dollars issues will be very complex. Endowments vs. growth at the very least.
June 27, 2006, at 2:47 pm
I don’t know the answer regarding how the U.S. courts will rule. I imagine that since the ECUSA is incorporated in the U.S. and the Anglican communion isn’t, it’s the ECUSA who has the better claim on the property. I would think courts would be uninterested in the concerns of Canterbury and Lagos when it comes to a property dispute in Rochester, N.Y.
As for who created the schism, I guess it’s all about perspective. One senses that Canterbury is actually more aligned with the ECUSA than it is with the Global South. But it is the Global South where all the people are and where well-funded ECUSA dissidents have laid their claim. Were it not for a few outspoken African bishops (egged on by American conservatives), would there be a schism, or would the Anglican Community continued to move forward in disagreement?
Arguably, you are right that it is the ECUSA who is creating the schisms. OTOH, when you are paying for everyone else’s place at the table, arguably the ECUSA and its allies should have some larger level of clout.
June 27, 2006, at 3:02 pm
Here are some questions. Much of the current discussion surrounding this issue has to do with money, and the assumption that the conservatives (traditionalists) will be financially poorer for kicking out the wealthier liberals (progressives). Are there any cases in the past history of the Christian church where such a thing has happened, and if so, what happened to the two sides a couple of generations after the split? In particular, did the traditionalists recover financially, and did the progressives essentially die off? Do the answers to these questions have anything to do with what happened shortly after the start of the Reformation, or with the split of the early church into the Eastern and Western camps?
On another note, the ELCA has recently had similar theological problems, and one consequence has been the formation of the LCMC. How have the finances been effected in this case? Is the ELCA still thriving financially, or are they starting to have some difficulties? Are any of the individual LCMC congregations suffering financially as a result of leaving the ELCA?
June 27, 2006, at 3:14 pm
“Arguably, you are right that it is the ECUSA who is creating the schisms. OTOH, when you are paying for everyone else’s place at the table, arguably the ECUSA and its allies should have some larger level of clout.”
Ah, Michael, you don’t really believe that. Certainly not when it comes to the wealthy here in America. What happened to that good ol’ progressive liberalism? What a totally illiberal position - that the wealthy should have greater say!!
Seriously, you made a rather striking mistake in your earlier comment when you wrote “For every Dallas, there is a Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago (and Toronto and Aukland and Sydney) that won’t be interested in funding for schismic follies and may be prepared to say, “Fine. Hand over the keys to your building and start asking for Akinola to pay the light bill while you meet in the high school gym or a local movie theatre.— It is not Akinola that will be paying the light bills for these buildings, but the dioces that have kicked out the orthodox who suddenly find themselves with large, and empty, edifices but no wealthy congregation to pay for them. The endowments go pretty quickly when there isn’t a day to day stream of income to take care of the day to day operating costs. Those who wind up actually forced to give up their buildings will simply rent as they raise the funds to build anew. And I’d bet dollars to donuts it won’t be that hard for them.
June 27, 2006, at 3:27 pm
“What a totally illiberal position - that the wealthy should have greater say!!”
Heck, I’m a realist. This isn’t the Catholic church, where one man calls the shots. This is the Anglican church where politics and money and power frame church discussions. As Terry pointed out, the Americans pay for the Africans to accuse Americans of heresy. Why should they continue to pay to be treated like this?
As for the buildings. It’s hard to tell. Maybe the ECUSA sells that Plano megachurch to someone else and pockets the proceeds. As for other churches, there are plenty of moderate and liberal parishes who would be happy to take over the buildings of the ECUSA dissidents.
Terry is overstating that the growth is limited to ECUSA dissidents and when push comes to shove, it’s likely some of those dissident parishes may choose to stay with the ECUSA and let their well-funded noisy activists go out on their own.
In many of those parishes, it’s a hand-full of noisy activists leading the dissident activity (just as it is a hand-full of noisy activists advocating on behalf of gays and lesbians). When the ENTIRE parish must choose between Canterbury/Lagos and and the ECUSA, we may have a very different picture of life in those parishes.
June 27, 2006, at 4:11 pm
The situation has so many questions that it’s exceedingly hard to analyze. If Stanton let’s CC Plano take its property with it, will the national church step in? Perhaps they could, and a presentment be brought against him to boot. If Newark elects an offensive bishop, will he/she get consents? Good question. And if he fails, will Chane et al consecrate him/her in defiance of canons? Good question. And if the do, will they be the subject of presentments? Good question.
Right now the fate of PECUSA rests very much in the hands of moderate bishops, both liberal and conservative. If the choose to enforce their commitment to institutional unity— the choice made at GC— then we will see a very different outcome than if the lose their nerve and let the extremes do as the wish without penalty.
What is particularly important about Williams’ article isn’t so much the solution, but the way in which he attempts to justify it. It seems to me that most people reading it have skipped ahead to the implementation section without reading the extensive argument for why we should even bother.
June 27, 2006, at 5:34 pm
[…] - GET RELIGION: “Money of the past vs. Money of the future”. And on Church-Blogging– “There’s a story in there that affects everybody from the Southern Baptists to the Episcopalians. As the old saying goes: Freedom of the press belongs to people who own one” … (getreligion) […]
June 27, 2006, at 6:05 pm
Running churches that congregations leave can get rather expensive. The local Anglicans here in Vancouver BC are forking out a quarter of a million dollars per year to keep a couple of parishes running, after the congregations left and became missionary parishes of the Church of Rwanda. These were not at all huge parishes, either.
Endowments are fine, but cash flow is likely to be a problem for revisionists who leave full membership in the Anglican Communion. Even selling off the empty churches would be a bit like eating the seed corn.
June 27, 2006, at 7:20 pm
What strikes me most about the “local option” being discussed in the TEC and the PCUSA is that it’s so ANTI-episcopal and ANTI-presbyterian in regards to polity.
It’s nothing short of revolutionary to say that congregations or regions will now get to determine their own way of doing things, or even their own doctrinal stance.
The concept sounds downright “congregationalist” to me. Devolving any great issue to the congregations is an astounding change in centuries of the way these churches have been governed.
As for the money issue, I find the idea that (in effect) “whoever has the gold makes the rules” a shocking new version of the Golden Rule some are espousing, especially coming from so-called liberals.
Here in NH (“ground zero” for the TEC civil war) most of a conservative ECUSA congregation walked out soon after the elevation of Bishop Robinson. The 30 or so remaining members made a brave attempt to cope, but the church closed down a year later. Now, the conservative church that separated is thriving and growing. I expect the same is true across the nation. Bishop Akinola may be the new spiritual leader of many in the TEC in the US, but he’s not their banker, and apparently, need not take on that role.
June 27, 2006, at 8:29 pm
Isn’t it the case that for the last two years or so the African Anglicans have refused and even returned ECUSA monies? And that the largest inflow of cash is coming from the conservative ECUSA congregations? That was the case last summer, at least. I suppose things may have changed since then.
Also, a trick may lie in that very suspicious renaming: is the ECUSA (and its properties) to be equated with “The Episcopal Church” (and its properties)? I’ll bet the legal situation is going to become very interesting on this point.
Yet another interesting turn in the history of the American Religiously-themed Social Club of note!
June 28, 2006, at 12:59 am
The concept sounds downright “congregationalist†to me. Devolving any great issue to the congregations is an astounding change in centuries of the way these churches have been governed.
Welcome to The Great Shift. The Presbyterians are becoming congregationalists. The Baptists are becoming presbyterians. The Methodists are on the road to returning to the Anglican Church. The Episcopalians are about to find themselves like a TV station that just lost its network affiliate. All the denominations are losing people to unaffiliated churches.
It’s all the natural progression of The Long Tail, after all. Soon, each of us will have our own church custom-made to our own theology and comfort level. Jesus tailor-fit to your needs.
It’s all part of why I’m so sick of Christendom. I’m so tired of churches that preach “Jesus AND special interest agenda item.”
June 28, 2006, at 6:08 am
Good posts.
The building pictured in the article deserves kudos for interesting design…kind of like “neo-Chartres” or something. Stands head and shoulders above the typical “big-box” factory superchurch here in Canada. It must have a wonderful “cathedral feel” when one is inside.
June 28, 2006, at 1:10 pm
“The Episcopalians are about to find themselves like a TV station that just lost its network affiliate.”
I like that analogy a lot!
June 28, 2006, at 2:37 pm
Regarding the property and legal issues, it looks like there will be court battles fought in every state, with some states divided by courts and by diocesan lines. There is not likely to be any national decision or compromise. I hate to forecast it, but it appears to this Lutheran that the resources and attention and energies of our Episcopalian brothers will be consumed by lawyering for the next two decades at least.
June 29, 2006, at 11:28 am
The snark in a number of posts covering liberal protestants is getting a bit much. In this case, the idea that evangelicalism which is dominant in these fights (esp. with the Presbyterians and Methodists) has a more historic link to the Reformation than liberal Protestants do.
Is the Bible the “cradle” which points to the Word of God, which contains it, or is it itself the Word. Liberals are more apt to say the first claim, linking them to Luther, not modern day evangelicals.
Do we believe in the priesthood of all believers? The shift to the Anglican primates as the central decision makers, taking it away from the laity suggests that in this the case, the right does not believe that.
I’m not saying the right has no connections either to the Reformation. I don’t think it’s an accident that liberalism and evangelicalism come from the same heritage, the same roots. They didn’t magically pop on the screen in the 60s, they’ve been around for centuries and they are the natural outgrowths of that tradition.
June 29, 2006, at 11:40 am
Dwight is right (although Mollie can debate him about Luther).
But on the issue of the Sacrament of Marriage, the battle has nothing to do with the Reformation. Read the Canterbury letter carefully — with its references to tradition. Small t? Big T?
July 8, 2006, at 4:43 pm
Luther was so far from a liberal in his understanding of Scripture that it is laughable to suggest that he was liberal. Luther took the Bible very literally to the point of rejecting heliocentrism because he could not square it with the Biblical Text. Luther reintroduced the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 after a millenia of symbolic interpretations. However there are liberals and there are liberals. Those liberals who argue for full inclusion of homosexuality have broken faith with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Wolfhart Pannenberg, a Lutheran theologian whose approach to Scripture would be considered more liberal than my inerrantist view said that those churches which afirm homosexuality are standing “against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be one, holy, catholic; and apostolic.”
July 22, 2006, at 11:52 pm
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are the same, in the end…all protesters with no central authority and no authoritative interpretation of Scripture….and both groups will go down the tubes of modernity because of it…the conservative Episcopal groups trying to opt out of the US group and attach itself to the ‘conservative’ Anglicans in Africa won’t stop from going over into the abyss….elected bishops, hired ‘priests’, etc…these things will lead them over the edge. Personal interpretation of Scripture always leads to liberal theology which always leads to lower levels of sexual morality…all other protestant groups will follow suit…it’s already happening…most protesters accept contraception, remarriage, the right to kill your unborn baby, etc.